Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

Awwww now web.... you do this all the time. I thought that you believed if you do that it makes them so.......... :laugh:

 

There is a difference between repeating oneself numerous times...and stating something numerous times to validate what is being stated

 

If you say so bro! :wavey:

 

Paul:

Thanks for the kind remarks.

You are right about men like Wilkin defaulting what Hodges teaches. One friend told me that during a panel discussion Wilkin made a point, Hodges disagreed, and Wilkin said, “I guess I’ll have to change my position.” My friend was there and heard it himself.

Plus, many do not realize that Hodges and Wilkin have polarized themselves with their strange twist on the Gospel. Many have left the GES over what is coming from Hodges and Wilkin.

The “poor understanding of repentance” for salvation is one of the few major issues around which the LS debate revolves. MacArthur, for LS, complicates it…Hodges for Crossless theology dismisses it. Both are wrong and have departed from orthodoxy.

Men in my IFB circles have noted the resurgence of Calvinism. It is disconcerting to many. Some in my circles have move to a Calvinistic view of Scripture.

I have also noted the attention John Piper is receiving from many in evangelical circles. Reformed theology is the attraction and glue. Men are willing to over look numerous issues with Piper, such as:

His views on Spirit baptism, charismatic gifts, use of Rap artists/music in his church, his attraction with the Toronto Blessing, using the “Cussing pastor” (Mark Driscoll) at his conferences, his own use of vulgarity, and trying to institute a policy for inclusion of non-baptized people into the membership of his church are among the issues with Piper.

There seems to be a huge disconnect between Piper’s theology and practice.

My concern with him and MacArthur is that these men are a potential bridge for our younger men to New Evangelicalism.

Finally, I am glad that you found my book helpful.


LM

 

Thanks, I'll do what I can.

I pay little or no attention to the men who have let the personalities involved in the LS debate cloud and drive their reactions.

JM, just a Piper, has a very large and loyal following. Some followers will not even consider the possibility that he (JM) is wrong on the Gospel. They view any questioning of his LS teaching as a personal attack on the man. That has been evident here and other venues.

As I say, I pay very little attention to them.


LM

 

I think personalities are very important. Such as when someone says that it seems that Lou is misrepresenting people like JM..... and then Lou calls them a liar for saying "it seems to me." Lou, if someone says " it seems to me" then that is what their perception of something is. You should not call them a liar. I'm waiting for your appology....... but like canady...... I'll not hold my breath.

 

:laugh: When you Calvinists develop enough to be as offended when one of your own make the very kind of remarks you now claim are offensive, well then someone will take your cries seriously. Until then, as you look the other way for your own but cry wolf otherwise, you will only have your echoing companions to comfort your tender ears.

 

One does not need to be a calvinist to be confused (or wrong) as BB has shown.

 

1. Let me go on record as saying: that I remain a 5-point Calvinist, but that doesn't mean I see no flaw in the LS approach.

2. LS is a distortion of the gospel offer, in my estimation, and I hope that my other Calvinist friends on BB don't runaway with the impression, that as long as you are a Calvinist, you must agree to LS.

3. For me this is not about Calvinism--it is about the LS debate.

4. Lou, John and I will continue to disagree on Calvinism, but I agree with what they have been saying so far on the LS issue.

 

As far as the Lordship of Jesus Christ is concerned....... He will be Lord of the life that receives Him as LORD and Savior. As far as how committed a regenerate person is ........... I think that can vary among the regenerate. What this thread is about is an HONEST debate about LS. The point canady has made many times is that some are coming at this debate dishonestly. I too would like to learn more about LS... and make up my own mind about it. But I don't need people to muddy the waters with misrepresentations... that is not helpful in the least.

 

Because canady has said there are those coming at this dishonestly, doe not make it so. Nobody has done this, IMO, and the title of the thread is misleading.

 

RB,

1. The fundament question in this whole debate is: The framing of the LS offer, Is it in Scripture?

2. Those who wish to make it about Calvinism are free to do so---but for me, it is not about Calvinism. It is about what I see in Scripture.

 

Again , please document or admit you messed up . Rather simple .

 

I understand sir....... and that is my wish too. It is not about Calvinism for me either..... but I do believe sir that Calvinism is at the root of the disagreement between Lou, Quack and other non calvinist with those who hold to reformed theology.

 

You say it's not about calvinism for you...but then state calvinism is at the root of the disagreement

 

You read well web.